Page:The Whitman Controversy.pdf/67

62 head tribe, I think in May, 1837. On that occasion Ermatinger got drunk on Hudson's Bay Company rum, and, as per bargain we made, he (Ermatinger) was to drink the rum and Gray the water. On that occasion the rum became patriotic for the company and England, the water for Uncle Sam. To close the argument he said: "Pooh! what can your Government do? All the company has to do is to arm their eight hundred half-breeds and they can control the Indians and drive back any troops your Government can send across the mountains. Our navy can protect the coast." I gave up the question, but never forgot the threat, and told Dr. Whitman about it when we met the next year. "The meeting" [September, 1842], "was divided. Revs. Walker and Eells thought it not proper for him (Dr. Whitman) to leave his place for the purpose of attending to political affairs. Rev. Spalding and Gray approved his object and design, being more fully informed of the designs of the Hudson's Bay Company than the two opposing members of the mission."

Here we have the testimony of the only two surviving members of that meeting, each positively asserting that Mr. Gray was present at this special meeting in September, 1842, while Mr. Evans says that there was no meeting at that time; and that Mr. Gray was not present at any such meeting. Shall we believe the testimony of two venerable gentlemen, each of equal credibility with Mr. Evans—each of whom speak from their own personal knowledge—or shall we believe Mr. Evans, who can only speak from hearsay? At the time these two gentlemen with their associates were discussing matters which seemed to them of great importance, things not likely to ever be forgotten by them, little Elwood Evans was struggling to master the "combination" of his first pair of pants, or wondering if the chestnuts on the hills of his native Pennsylvania were not ripe, and never dreaming that the day would come when he would be able to tell these old missionaries more of their doings out here than they had ever known themselves. Have you, Mr. Evans, in this, your own chosen instance, successfully impeached the memory of Mr. Eells? Is not the preponderance of evidence with him and against you? To my mind this settles the question of credibility in favor of Mr. Eells, if, indeed, there ever has been such a question in the mind of any, other than Mr. Evans. To prove that there was no special meeting held in September, and that no meeting had been held later than the annual meeting in June, Mr. Evans quotes from a letter written by Rev.